Doing Business in Latin America By Prof. Attila Andrade Jr. University of Miami Law School  Spring, 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Doing Business in Latin America By Prof. Attila Andrade Jr. University of Miami Law School – Spring, 2008. Brief biographical data on Prof. Attila Andrade Jr. Prof. Andrade holds two graduate degrees from the Yale Law School :

Copyright Complaint Adult Content Flag as Inappropriate

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Doing Business in Latin America By Prof. Attila Andrade Jr. University of Miami Law School  Spring, 2008' - KeelyKia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

He has 16 published books in Brazil and abroad. He is a senior partner at Advocacia Attila de Souza Leão Andrade Jr. , an international law firm based in São Paulo and a law professor at Business School São Paulo.

5- Do you agree that as Secretary Hull’s contention that principles of international law subscribe to the conclusion that any expropriation must be followed by “adequate, effective and prompt payment for the properties seized”?

5.1- If so, where precisely these principles are written ? Or are they part of general principles of law as natural law ?

6- Do you agree with Prof.Vernon’s conclusion that “concepts of the right of citizens to property or the duty of governments to compensate should be thought of as peculiar to different national traditions rather than as part of an international standard “?

7- Do you agree that foreign investors in any country must necessarily foresee and assume the risks of an eventual unfair take-over ? Please justify your answer.

“4- Nationalization , expropriation or requisitioning shall be based on grounds or reasons of public utility, security or the national interest which are recognized as overriding purely individual or private interests, both domestic and foreign. In such cases the owner shall be paid appropriate compensation, in accordance with the rules in force in the State taking such measures in the exercise of its sovereignty and in accordance with international law. In any case, where the question of compensation gives rise to a controversy, the national jurisdiction of the State taking such measures shall be exhausted. However, upon agreement by sovereign States and other parties concerned, settlement of the dispute should be made through arbitration or international adjudication.”

Do you see any ambiguity in the text of the Resolution adopted by the 1962 General Assembly of the UN ?

On the basis of that Resolution, can a US company file a law suit in an international court of law, against a foreign government alleging no compensation or unfair compensation for an expropriation of its assets ? In this case which international court would have venue to hear the case?

Following the same reasoning, could the US Company file the law suit in an international court of justice, alleging that despite the compensation, the expropriation was overtly discriminatory ?

“... (e) Full permanent sovereignty of every State over its natural resources and all economic activities. In order to safeguard these resources, each State is entitled to exercise effective control over them and their exploitation with means suitable to its own situation, including the right to nationalization or transfer of ownership to its nationals, this right being an expression of the full permanent sovereignty of the State. No State may be subjected to economic, political or any other type of coercion to prevent the free and full exercise of this inalienable right “

Questions:

How do you compare this Declaration with the 1962 Declaration? 2) do you read the text above as revoking the right to fair compensation for a nationalization ?

5) A US company waives legal protection in the agreement for the investments it made in a Latin American country. Such a country later expropriated the assets of the US company.

Would this US Company be at a complete loss ? Does it have any remedy ?

Please consult # 713 of the Restatement on Protection of Persons.

6) In order to resort to arbitral international courts of law or diplomacy of its own national state, do corporations or individuals have to resort to local courts of law in the expropriatory foreign country ?

For the answer, kindly consult with #713 of the Restatement on Remedies for injury to nationals or other States.

We interpret the Hickenlooper Amendments aimed at protecting only US persons assets and interests being expropriated abroad.

However, if a third party country person and that foreign expropriating country provide in their agreement, the venue of a US court, then the latter will have jurisdiction. Also the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act permitted the same in Verlinden B.V. vs. Central Bank of Nigeria ( 461 US 480, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 76 L. Ed. 2d 81 – 1983).

It happens when the host State creates a situation under which the holding and operation of a business in that country becomes excessively onerous. Generally, it is done by means of an excessive tax system ( see retroactively the Bolivian case which deleterious affected the investments of Petrobras in that country). By raising taxes on the business, the foreign company will be forced to sell out its assets for an insignificant value.

b) What discriminatory expropriation means in international law ?

The leading case on this is Banco Nacional de Cuba vs Sabbatino ( 376 US 398 1964) please reading material for class discussion

Under this concept, “it is a violation of international law if, in repudiating or breaching the contract, the state is acting essentially from governmental motives ( akin to those that operate in cases of expropriation) rather than for commercial reasons, and fails to pay compensation or to accept an agreed dispute settlement procedure.

( support reading material on this : “Protection of Persons “by Ali on the Restatement of US laws on Foreign Relations”)

What is the Hickenlooper Amendment and what does it provide for ?

Can a US company file a law suit against a Latin American country in US in a federal court alleging unfair nationalization and seeking freezing of its assets in US as a means of compensation ? ( see Sabatino case; what is predominant US Supreme Court ruling on the matter ?)

3) Under the Restatement, what does it constitute a breach of international law whenever a foreign state violates the interests of a US investor abroad ?

Congress has enacted 22 U.S.C.# 2370 also known as the Second Hickenlooper Amendment. This legislation states that US Courts should not apply the Act of State doctrine in cases of expropriation of assets by a foreign government except if the Executive tells them to do so for diplomatic or political reasons. Both the first and the second Hickenlooper Amendments sponsored by Iowa Senator, Bourke Hickenlooper were the Congressional responses to the radicalization of the Act of State doctrine in the US Supreme Court ruling in Banco Nacional de Cuba vs Sabatino.

Finally this Amendment entitles the Executive to examine case by case to determine which cases the Judiciary is to hear .However comentators suggest that courts have narrowly interpreted the Second Hickenlooper Amendment to apply it only when the assets are located in the US.

The International Court of Justice ( ICJ) has no jurisdiction to hear cases of expropriation of assets of private individuals or companies by foreign sovereign governments. Its jurisdiction is limited to legal disputes between and among nation states.

It seems that the international law is quite dubious and timid in protecting private parties against expropriations specially in light of the 1974 UN Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order;

2) Likewise the strict jurisdictional power of the International Court of Justice and the resilient application of the Act of State Doctrine by US Courts seriously jeopardize the situation of private US investors in Latin America and elsewhere.

3) Therefore, lawyers are highly recommended to resort to international arbitral expedients in their agreements with foreign governments or seek US insurance protection.

What else, in addition to arbitration clauses in the international agreements, you would recommend your client to obtain ?

The US Congress had passed a number of facilities which are designed to protect the US investments abroad. One of these , most relevant is the OPIC , a government-funded and sponsored political risk insurance policy which purports to insure US investments abroad in case of expropriation. The other facility is the MIGA (“Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency”).

OPIC is na instrumentality of the US federal government and its covenants bear the full faith and credit of the US while MIGA is na instrumentality of the World Bank and its capitalization come from the WB country members;

While OPIC beneficiaries must be US individual or corporate investors abroad, MIGA is more international in scope and it may also cover nationals of the host country ( na expedient supposedly devised to avoid capital flight in developing nations);

How does the ECIP relate to OPIC and MIGA programs and in what ways one may say that the ECIP may also assist US investors abroad against the risks of expropriation of assets by hostile foreign governments ?;

2.1) ( nature of risk coverage: while OPIC and MIGA only cover political risks , ECIP may cover both political and commercial risks on behalf of US investors abroad).